Stingray24 wrote:
Several posts back you agreed that the US should've taken out Saddam and then left. That's why I said it makes no sense to do that and leave and allow countries to exert control who do not have the best interests of the West in mind. It is only prudent to attempt to push things away from further influence by Iran.
Someone has to attempt to maintain control until the Iraqis figure out what the hell their going to do with their country. The US is damned if we do, damned if we don't. We capture terrorists and throw em in Gitmo and we're bad and too harsh. We don't repress Iraq and we're bad because we're not harsh enough. I, for one, am tired of all the Monday morning quarterbacking by the rest of the world who sits on their ever expanding rear end doing NOTHING while the US does the heavy lifting.
No you slightly misread what I said.
IF I WAS THE US AND WAS HELL-BENT ON PRE-EMPTIVE ACTION (<-- a hypothetical) then I would have knocked out the leader, checked for WMD and gotten out of there. No matter how many thousands of years you stay in that country the people are not going to bend to your will. The Brits tried it for 800 years here in Ireland. I'm just trying to impress upon you the futility of what you propose as 'the right course of action'.
1. Gitmo - harsh, unfair and ineffective at reducing terror.
2. Installing another Saddam - harsh, unfair and
possibly capable of marginally reducing the terror threat (slightly) .
3. Minding your own business, building up deterrency, securing your borders - not harsh, not unfair.
It's as simple as that. The responsibility to sort out Iraq is that of Iraqis alone, not some foreign hand.Reality can sometimes be a bitter pill to swallow for some who are adamant they can try and control the will of a people.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-02-28 08:18:42)